Forced sex between married couple not rape: Court

A Delhi court has observed that forced physical relationship between legally wedded husband and wife was not rape while acquitting a man of rape charges.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhat acquitted Aftab Alam, who was being tried for raping his tenant after marrying her.

The court said: "The prosecutrix and the accused were legally wedded husband and wife from July 20, 2012 and the physical relations between the two thereafter, even if against the consent of the prosecutrix, do not tantamount to offence of rape."

The court noted that Alam had performed Nikah with the prosecutrix in the house of his paternal aunt (Bua) in presence of a Molvi (Muslim cleric) July 20, 2012.

It also observed that victim has herself deposed during trial that the accused performed Nikah with her and she considers herself as his wife.

"In view of said clear cut statement of the prosecutrix, there is no difficulty to hold that the sexual intercourse between her and the accused after July 20, 2012 does not come within the ambit of offence of rape," the court said.

As per the prosecution case, victim was residing as a tenant along with her family in house of Alam's father in Uttam Nagar here. Alam used to visit their house for collecting rent.

July 19, 2012, Alam found victim alone in the house and gave her an intoxicated drink after which she felt unconscious and he raped her.

On the next day, he took her to his aunt's place and married her and then raped her. Later, Alam burnt the marriage document and refused to accept her, the prosecution has alleged.

The woman registered a case against accused on Jan 9, 2013 in west Delhi's Bindapur police station.

The court observed that the conduct of the woman in accompanying the man "voluntarily and willingly" on the next day was also highly unnatural and goes against the prosecution case.

"It beats all imagination to say that a rape victim would voluntarily accompany the rapist on the subsequent date after the incident of rape," it said. "Apparently, these incidents of sexual intercourse appear to be consensual," it added.

It said the woman's statements were not reliable and "this creates a doubt in the mind of the court regarding veracity of testimony of the prosecutrix in this regard."

The order was delivered June 5 but it was made available Friday.